mjm323s:RyogaM: I'll wait for an indictment to be made before I'll even try to independently determine the legality or illegality of the acts alleged, and I'm an attorney. Good luck to all you non-lawyer, internet investigators in your attempt to determine what laws were violated by which acts by which parties. You're going to need it.

As a lawyer I have no doubt you understand the law better than I. But as a taxpayer I would really hope that it is pretty cut and dry that you don't share personal tax information. Seems simple enough.

There doesn't seem to be any personal tax information involved. This is entirely organizational information.

You realize that the insane people always believe they're the sane ones, right?

Also, interesting that you won't engage sprawl15 who pretty clearly laid out why this is a non-scandal.

What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you. Then you feel vindicated when someone else does the work for you. Imagine that.

Have you read ghare's posts? Either you're as dishonest as you seem or you're as stupid as he is. Quite possibly both.

sprawl's info may decisively prove the article wrong, but at this point, that's more scrutiny than it deserves.Guess the Obamacare rollout isn't getting enough traction? They're back to Benghazi and the IRS.

skullkrusher:What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you.

Why on earth would you mock me for being correct? It's like you have no memory at all. Look, we all know that conservative sources cry wolf about anything and everything. The smart thing to do is assume it's nothing until proven otherwise.

cameroncrazy1984:skullkrusher: What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you.

Why on earth would you mock me for being correct? It's like you have no memory at all. Look, we all know that conservative sources cry wolf about anything and everything. The smart thing to do is assume it's nothing until proven otherwise.

Because being correct for the wrong reasons is barely better than being wrong.

That's the thing. The information to be "proven otherwise" was right there but you didn't even bother to inform yourself. Now you want credit for being right. So the examiner makes shiat up. It's like proudly strutting that you guessed 7 or 11 would come up on the next roll

Sergeant Grumbles:sprawl's info may decisively prove the article wrong, but at this point, that's more scrutiny than it deserves.

Well not really. It could be a violation of privacy laws or other laws regarding confidentiality of applications, so there could be a crime in the documents. But I just can't see how it's that specific crime. JW's website stated this in their announcement:

Initial news reports, when word of some of these IRS-FEC emails first surfaced in August 2013, raised a variety of legal issues. One was the fact that Lerner was supplying confidential information concerning the tax exempt application status of conservative organizations. Another was the fact that the inquiries regarding AFF made by the FEC attorneys in February 2009 to Lerner occurred before the FEC commissioners had voted on whether to investigate AFF (the FEC later voted not to investigate AFF). A third was the appearance of collusion between government agencies with an apparently anti-conservative bias. The new in-depth emails obtained by Judicial Watch seem to confirm that the possible collusion between the IRS and the FEC may have been far more extensive than first indicated, particularly in view of allegations that, prior to joining the IRS, Lerner's tenure as head of the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) also was marked by what appeared to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups.

It's kind of like how the IRS investigation of tea party groups was actually A Problem, just not The Problem that the right wing shiat their huggies over.

skullkrusher:cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher is the guy who, on the third and fourth times crying wolf, is rushing over to see the wolf while everyone else is back at the bar drinking.

That story ends with the villagers in a world of hurt. Not the best metaphor.

That's why I said the third and fourth times. You know, when the boy cried wolf and there was obviously no wolf. Eventually the GOP will be in a world of hurt, but that's rather inexact for this metaphor.

cameroncrazy1984:skullkrusher: cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher is the guy who, on the third and fourth times crying wolf, is rushing over to see the wolf while everyone else is back at the bar drinking.

That story ends with the villagers in a world of hurt. Not the best metaphor.

That's why I said the third and fourth times. You know, when the boy cried wolf and there was obviously no wolf. Eventually the GOP will be in a world of hurt, but that's rather inexact for this metaphor.

And on the 5th time there actually was the wolf. You be the proud villager drinking at the bar. I'll keep an eye on the sheep

And in doing so, people learned long ago the right was disingenuous and untrustworthy.

And here they are, bringing up old news, yet again, with another "WE TOLD YOU THIS WAS A SCANDAL". They haven't been correct so far, and the previous information available shows their motivations and methods. If they hadn't already proven themselves to be out for Obama's blood, damn the facts, I might have given this more than a passing glance. But since they stretch in the very first farking sentence to link Lerner to Obama, I think I can name the tune in that many notes. It's something I've heard before.

You realize that the insane people always believe they're the sane ones, right?

Also, interesting that you won't engage sprawl15 who pretty clearly laid out why this is a non-scandal.

What's there to engage about? I never said there was a scandal. I did, however, mock those who wouldn't even look at the facts before making that determination. Like you. Then you feel vindicated when someone else does the work for you. Imagine that.

Have you read ghare's posts? Either you're as dishonest as you seem or you're as stupid as he is. Quite possibly both.

When every Right Wing claim of scandal ends up turning out to be something like this, it is natural that people stop bothering to look at facts before calling bullshiat on their claims. It is the typical "Boy who cried wolf" situation. They did it to themselves, and they don't seem to want to do anything to change that impression.

And in doing so, people learned long ago the right was disingenuous and untrustworthy.

And here they are, bringing up old news, yet again, with another "WE TOLD YOU THIS WAS A SCANDAL". They haven't been correct so far, and the previous information available shows their motivations and methods. If they hadn't already proven themselves to be out for Obama's blood, damn the facts, I might have given this more than a passing glance. But since they stretch in the very first farking sentence to link Lerner to Obama, I think I can name the tune in that many notes. It's something I've heard before.

You use a very broad brush, seem incapable of comprehension and fail to realize that there are two fringe sides but the majority of us lie somewhere in the middle, (not you of course). This is not an old story. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation when it last ended more information was requested. Does that make sense?

Cataholic:There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.

Wrong. I linked the definition upthread. I'll repost it here, since you seemed to have missed it:

The term "return information" means-(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,

The 1024 is not an information return - or a return of any kind, it's an application. The important thing here is reason for collection - it defines a certain set of data as well as the purpose for obtaining that data as the two part definition.

So, let's recap: I assumed that a known lying website, referenced by a known liar, was almost assuredly full of lies, and a waste of my time to bother looking at.

And subsequent analysis by someone who has more patience with liars than I, and who is a professional, confirmed that the lying website referenced by a liar was in fact lying, and I am somehow at fault.

mjm323s:You use a very broad brush, seem incapable of comprehension and fail to realize that there are two fringe sides but the majority of us lie somewhere in the middle, (not you of course). This is not an old story. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation when it last ended more information was requested. Does that make sense?

If you're giving the right the benefit of a doubt, you're the one who lacks comprehension. The right embraced their fringe and are dragging the entire middle rightward with them.Congressional investigation? You mean the Congress with Darryl Issa, who "oops" conveniently forgot to mention the IRS scrutinized someone besides Tea Party groups.Like I just said to sprawl, this isn't shrewd criticism about tightening up IRS info-transfer procedure, it's another flavor of Obama witchhunt, Like I said to you, that's obvious from the first farking sentence.

Fart_Machine:Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.

Did you read your link? The use of private emails in your link was confined to exchanging taxpayer information within the IRS. This new information shows that it is the sharing of specific income information outside the IRS to the FEC. Again, your source fails to back up your assertion. Please, try again.

So, let's recap: I assumed that a known lying website, referenced by a known liar, was almost assuredly full of lies, and a waste of my time to bother looking at.

And subsequent analysis by someone who has more patience with liars than I, and who is a professional, confirmed that the lying website referenced by a liar was in fact lying, and I am somehow at fault.

Fart_Machine:Cataholic: sprawl15: Cataholic: Their application for exempt status is NOT subject to public disclosure while the application is pending.

Their application for exempt status is not a tax return or information pertaining to a tax return. That's the fundamental definitional hurdle.

There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103. The only reason we needed a §6104 was because §6103 applied to this data.

So how is cross-information between federal agencies public disclosure.

It is not public disclosure, it is plain disclosure and is illegal to share said information with other federal agencies except under certain circumstances listed in §6103 (many of which require a court order). However, an exempt organization will have its information published once their exemption is approved.

HeadLever:Fart_Machine: Well here is the liberal Washington Free Beacon talking about it on October 8th.

Did you read your link? The use of private emails in your link was confined to exchanging taxpayer information within the IRS. This new information shows that it is the sharing of specific income information outside the IRS to the FEC. Again, your source fails to back up your assertion. Please, try again.

Um yeah. It talks about relaying information through private email. Are you saying its illegal to share relevant information with other federal agencies because what was sent isn't illegal.

sprawl15:Cataholic: There is information on Form 1024 (and 1023) which would be categorized as return information under IRC §6103.

Wrong. I linked the definition upthread. I'll repost it here, since you seemed to have missed it:The term "return information" means-(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense,The 1024 is not an information return - or a return of any kind, it's an application. The important thing here is reason for collection - it defines a certain set of data as well as the purpose for obtaining that data as the two part definition.

I think that is much too narrow a reading.

"(A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or [any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return or with respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof) of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense]"

Everything before the bolded OR stands on its own as return information the portion I've bracketed is a stand-alone catch-all provision. It would be illegal for the IRS to disclose any of those things regardless of whether it was collected by them in connection with an actual return as opposed to it having been gathered by some other means. Just my legal opinion..not aware of any cases that deal with IRS disclosure of 1024 information as this is probably going to be the first time.

Sergeant Grumbles:mjm323s: You use a very broad brush, seem incapable of comprehension and fail to realize that there are two fringe sides but the majority of us lie somewhere in the middle, (not you of course). This is not an old story. There is an ongoing Congressional investigation when it last ended more information was requested. Does that make sense?

If you're giving the right the benefit of a doubt, you're the one who lacks comprehension. The right embraced their fringe and are dragging the entire middle rightward with them.Congressional investigation? You mean the Congress with Darryl Issa, who "oops" conveniently forgot to mention the IRS scrutinized someone besides Tea Party groups.Like I just said to sprawl, this isn't shrewd criticism about tightening up IRS info-transfer procedure, it's another flavor of Obama witchhunt, Like I said to you, that's obvious from the first farking sentence.

Here let me help you be an informed citizen... http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official -tea-party-scandal-retires/?page=all

You are right Darryl Issa is on the committee, but her resignation was also recommended by Mark Levin a democrat. If there was no evidence and this was just something created to make Obama look bad, Iwould have to assume she would still have her job.

You keep proving my point by referencing this linked article and claiming that what happened is not an issue because the article is biased. I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.

My reading is that there is a set of data, "a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data" which includes pretty much any data within or relating to a tax return. You're asserting that the catchall 'any other data' bit only re-asserts the previous list. Which is kind of self-defeating.

But it's irrelevant, since what exactly constitutes the data relating to a return is not the important part, as I stated over and over again. What is important is that the data within the 1024 is not return related data: "with respect to a return". If it is data not with respect to a return, it is not data that is protected under this subsection. And since applications are not returns, none of the part you're quibbling about matters.

And your whole grammatical argument is nonsense, since there's a comma after 'data' which denotes the end of the list. Contrast to "by the Secretary with respect to a return".

Cataholic:an exempt organization will have its information published once their exemption is approved.

US Code 11.3.9.12 (12-28-2007)Public Inspection of Certain Information ReturnsThe information included on certain annual information returns of organizations and trusts that are exempt or seeking exempt status, or information required to be filed therewith, is required to be made available for public inspection under the authority of IRC § 6104(b).

jaytkay:mjm323s: I'll agree that it is not a great source but it is not the only one that has brought it to the public forum.

There is one source, Judicial Watch.

All the other "sources" are pointing to the same Judicial Watch claims.

Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Apparently Judicial watch has some credibility for the news outlets if they are sourcing them. As I mentioned previously there are liberal and conservative media, if this was only on Fox News and the Blaze I may agree with you, but that is not the case.

jaytkay:skullkrusher: Doctor Funkenstein: skullkrusher: jaytkay: "...according to the Washington Examiner and a host of media sources..."

[imageshack.us image 250x272]

it's like a badge of honor for you guys. Amazing.

To weigh the merits of the source before making judgment to better ensure that the information we're considering isn't tantamount to the testimony of a third grader that claims to be good friends with Sasquatch. Yeah, kinda.

not really - actually, what a thinking person does is find facts to refute the information. What you do is pretend the information doesn't exist because it is from a biased source.It doesn't make the information go away nor does it make it any more or less true.

So go find us the "host of media sources" reporting this story and show how they independently confirmed the facts.

Funny, I actually did this, just to confirm what I suspected. The level of derp in the sources reporting this are all there:

The one article that seemed to have a reputable source, Washington Post, has no mention of "breaking the law".

So, yes, there is merit to waiting for a reputable source to report such news. It's not a "Badge of Honor". It's a way of filtering out shiatty information. You know, just like all of the shiatty information that gets hammered into these Tea Party nuts over and over again as they indoctorate themselves with their echo chamber. Once they are that far gone, there are so many layers of lies that it's almost impossible to convince them that they are wrong on so many fronts.

mjm323s:Question for ya: if this was a banking CEO that was caught doing some illegal stuff and after they resigned the Huffington Post found some additional evidence that would help in pressing charges, would that be different?

Well considering what the "evidence" is, you'd have to specify if the evidence had the same credibility as that put forth by JW.